GreenYes Digest V98 #243

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@ucsd.edu)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:24:55 -0500


GreenYes Digest Wed, 18 Nov 98 Volume 98 : Issue 243

Today's Topics:
'Green cleaning' (2 msgs)
<GRRN> THREAD: IS COKE RECYCLING OR GREENWASHING?
Corp Watch is back! (fwd)
Fw: Fw: Store yanks direct-to-mouth PVC toy
Fw: Vice President Gore announces National Recycling Challenge
not getting digest lately
Self Adhesive postage stamps (6 msgs)
Store yanks direct-to-mouth PVC toy (2 msgs)

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu> (please add
a descriptive Subject header)
To unsubscribe, email: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu> with the
message: unsub greenyes-digest
For problems you can't solve otherwise, email: <postmaster@ucsd.edu>
The GrassRoots Recycling Network's Web site is: http://www.grrn.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loop-Detect: GreenYes:98/243
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:48:19 -0800
From: Myra Nissen <myracycl@inreach.com>
Subject: 'Green cleaning'

Jennifer,

The Santa Clara County (CA) Hzardous Waste Management Program has a
great consumer guide to safer alternatives to hazardous houshold
products called "Take Me Shopping." The issue that I have is dated April
1993.

Myra Nissen
The Sutta Co.
Oakland, CA
myracycl@inreach.com
510-873-8777

Jennifer Kent wrote:
>
> I am working on a project to promote the use of less toxic/ hazardous
> materials in the home. Has anyone been involved in a dedicated education/
> communication program on green cleaning. Most of the materials I have seen
> are ad-ons to existing waste avoidance/ waste minimisation campaigns. I
> would really appreciate any contacts/ leads.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jenny Kent
> Mob: 0417 455 644
> E-mail: jennykent@bigpond.com.au

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 01:27:51 -0500
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: 'Green cleaning'

At 07:08 PM 11/17/98 +1100, Jennifer Kent wrote:
>I am working on a project to promote the use of less toxic/ hazardous
>materials in the home. Has anyone been involved in a dedicated education/
>communication program on green cleaning.
>Jenny Kent
>Mob: 0417 455 644
>E-mail: jennykent@bigpond.com.au
====================================
Dear Jenny:

Here are some Web references that may prove helpful:

(Seattle Public Utilities)
http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/util/ept/clngrn/default.htm

(Products for a Better World)
http://www.betterworld.com/BWZ/9606/product.htm?Natural+Cleansers

(Lycos - Natural Cleaning Products Guide)
http://207.77.90.19/wguide/wire/wire_628930_64830_3_1.html

Roger M. Guttentag
215-513-0452
215-513-0453 (fax)
Read Recycling in Cyberspace in Resource Recycling
November, 1998 - Market Development
December, 1998 - Composting

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 02:28:03 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
Subject: <GRRN> THREAD: IS COKE RECYCLING OR GREENWASHING?

KARL, A STUDENT AT COLORADO UNIVERSITY,
ASKED BOB WOODALL:

I am a student at the University of Colorado in Boulder and
read an article in the local paper "Colorado Daily" entitled
"Recycling Doesn't Go Better With Coke" in which you
had a contribution. They printed your statement, "Coca-
Cola sells 20 million sodas every day in the United States
in plastic bottles without using a single ounce of recycled
plastic. As Coke uses more and more plastic, it is
undermining plastic recycling."

I am somewhat of an environmentalist, and when I first
read this article, I was angered that the US Coke industries
do not use recyled plastic, but their foreign counterparts do,
to a certain percentage. So I decided to do a little research
on it and see if Coke had anything to say. I visited their
website at www.thecoca-colacompany.com to find a whole
section on contributions to the environment. They stated
"Last year the Coca-Cola business system purchased more
than $2 billion of materials and supplies containing
recycled materials in the United States alone."

So, I am confused, are [you] just using this as a publicity
mark to attract people that they do use recycled products, or
are you trying to reduce a company that seems to be doing
a good job for the environment? I don't know who to side
with, whether to ban coca- cola and not purchase their
drinks and other merchandice until they go on with their
agreement to use at least 25% recycled plastics like they
agreed on in 1990 or to continue enjoying that refreshing
taste which is a small fraction of contributed money to
programs which Coke does benefit with money like
Environmental Education and The National Park
Foundation. Visit the website and respond to a confused
environmentalist.

ERIC LOMBARDI SAID:

If this kid is right about Coke buying $2 billion
(billion???) in recycled content stuff in one year,
then we need to know that ... as the heat goes up
on them (great job everyone!!) they WILL respond,
and when they do, it will be with a sharp sword...
they play to win, and most of the public is wanting
them to be "good guys" and will give them the benefit
of the doubt ... I think Coke will play to that, and
this website data could be a hint as to where they
will go....

BILL SHEEHAN SAID:

Coke sells over $18 billion worth of product
and packaging each year worldwide -- and the
packaging costs them more than the product
(pat franklin has figures). So I do not
think $2 billion for recycled materials is so
impressive -- even if it is only for the U.S.

I am surprised it is only $2 billion,
considering that they sell three times as
many aluminum cans (25 to 30 billion, with
high recycled content) as plastic bottles in
the U.S., and those cans are packed in
recycled boxboard. ..

I think that we just need to stay on message
here: Coke is not using recycled plastic as
they promised. The fact that soda bottles
are made into 50 different products -- but
not back into soda bottles -- should not let
them off the hook, any more than the fact
that they are buying recycled content
prodcuts elsewhere.

It is o.k. to acknowledge Coke's efforts
elsewhere -- but we should also point out
that they are moving rapidly from recycled
content aluminum and glass containers to
zero-recycled content plastic bottles.

STEVE APOTHEKER SEZ:

[Your] interpretation of Coke's numbers is
right on. The soft drink industry uses about
65 billion aluminum cans each year. Given
Coke's 40%+ soft drink market share, it is
responsible for using about 26 billion cans
annually. Aluminum cans have an average
post-consumer recycled content of just over
50%, with another 20% of post-industrial
scrap, making a total recycled content of
more than 70% for this container.

Aluminum cans cost about 5-6 cents each
(heck, it costs Coke 2 cents per can for the
aluminum ingot alone, which does not include
the costs of rolling the ingot into sheet,
then cutting out and rolling the can). Thus,
Coke pays about between $1.3 billion and $1.6
billion annually just for the aluminum cans.
It also buys a little glass. And, all of the
corrugated shipping containers and the other
paper packaging has recycled content. It
does not surprise me that Coke is able to
claim it spends $2 billion in the U.S. alone
on recycled content packaging, because
aluminum cans will account for 60% to 80% of
that claim.

Colorado students should boycott Coke.

RICK ANTHONY SAID:

This is the point!

They are moving away from aluminum and glass
packages that are made with recycled materials,
and are now pushing a package
that could be but is now not
made with any recycled materials.

We recognize PETE's value
in sturdiness and lightness,
and as consumers and recyclers,
we like sturdiness and lightness.

We still want recycled material content.
Product loyalty be damned.

###

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:40:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Ann Schneider <aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Corp Watch is back! (fwd)

I've forwarded this message from CRT-list which is the listserve of the
Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition. The list they are advertising is a
Corporation watch. The Toxic Coalition is a watchdog group for hazardous
materials and was one of the first ?/earliest advocates against ground
water contamination from so called clean industry in Santa Clara County.

Ann Schneider

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:44:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Silicon Valley Toxics Coal <svtc@igc.apc.org>
To: crt-list@igc.org
Subject: Corp Watch is back!

Dear Friends--
Here is information about another list-serve we thought you would be
interested in.

___________________________________________________

After a week off for vacation, Focus on the Corporation returns this week.
The column will follow shortly.

First, a request. We'd like to build the electronic circulation of Focus
on the Corporation. If members of the list could pass the notice below to
friends, colleagues and relevant lists, we'd appreciate it.

Also, we are working with Z magazine's ZNet to establish a forum where
readers of the column can post comments and where Russell and I will
respond. We've received many interesting e-mail notes over the past few
months; this will give people a way to share their comments with a broader
audience, if they choose. We'll post information on this in the next few
weeks.
________________________________________-

LISTSERVE ANNOUNCEMENT: FOCUS ON THE CORPORATION

Corp-Focus is a moderated listserve which distributes the weekly column
"Focus on the Corporation," co-authored by Russell Mokhiber, editor of
Corporate Crime Reporter, and Robert Weissman, editor of Multinational
Monitor magazine.

To subscribe to Corp-Focus, send an e-mail message to
listproc@essential.org with the following all in one line:

subscribe corp-focus <your name>

Focus on the Corporation scrutinizes the multinational corporation -- the
most powerful institution of our time. Once a week, it reports and
comments critically on corporate actions, plans, abuses and trends.
Written with a sharp edge and occasional irreverency, Focus on the
Corporation covers:

* The double standards which excuse corporations for behavior (e.g.,
causing injury, accepting welfare) widely considered criminal or shameful
when done by individuals;
* Globalization and corporate power;
* Trends in corporate economic blackmail, political influence and
workplace organization;
* Industry-wide efforts to escape regulation, silence critics, employ new
technologies or consolidate business among a few companies;
* Specific, extreme examples of corporate abuses: destruction of
communities, trampling of democracy, poisoning of air and water;
* Issues, such as tort reform, of across-the-board interest to business;
and
* The corporatization of our culture.

Please post this notice on relevant lists, and accept our apologies for
cross-posting.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 23:16:41 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
Subject: Fw: Fw: Store yanks direct-to-mouth PVC toy

-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Cray <ccray@dialb.greenpeace.org>
To: bill_sheehan@mindspring.com <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
Cc: myracycl@inreach.com <myracycl@inreach.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Store yanks direct-to-mouth PVC toy

Myra--
PVC and PVA are different resins. The problem with polyvinyl
chloride is the chlorine. It makes the plastic brittle, which is why
you need plasticizers like phthalates to make it flexible.

This is not the only problem with PVC. Because it's made out of
chlorine dioxin is formed during the feedstock production process and
when it is burned -- either accidentally or deliberately. Also, it
requires lots of other additives and contaminates the recycling of
other plastics (e.g. PET and HDPE). For all of these reasons we are
asking companies to pledge to not use PVC in their products or
facilities. I can send you information about all of this if you
give me a mailing address.

From: Myra Nissen <myracycl@inreach.com>
To: Bill Sheehan <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
Cc: GreenYes <greenyes@ucsd.edu>
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Store yanks direct-to-mouth PVC toy

Does any one know if this polyvinyl toxic stuff extends to the polyvinyl
alcohol that is used in contraceptives?

Thank you.

Myra Nissen
The Sutta Co.
Oakland, CA
myracycl@inreach.com
510-873-8777
http://www.sutta.com

Bill Sheehan wrote:
>
> Store yanks direct-to-mouth PVC toy
>
> Toys 'R' Us, a worldwide seller of toys, said Friday it would have all
> direct-to-mouth toys that contain phthalates removed from its store shelves
by
> Wednesday. The decision came just one day after the National Environmental
> Trust, a nonprofit environmental organization, released test results showing
> that 33 common soft plastic children's toys -- seven of which could be
> purchased at Toys 'R' Us -- contained high levels of the chemical.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> ENN NEWSWIRE
> E-mail Edition for Monday, November 16, 1998
> Produced by the Environmental News Network

Charlie Cray
Greenpeace US Toxics Campaign
417 S. Dearborn Suite 420
Chicago, IL 60605
Ph: (312) 554-1027
Fx: (312) 554-1224
e-mail address: Charlie.Cray@dialb.greenpeace.org
Greenpeace International's new Toxics Web site:
http://www.greenpeace.org/~toxics
Greenpeace US Toxics NEW! (11/98) Web Site:
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/toxics/

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:31:45 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
Subject: Fw: Vice President Gore announces National Recycling Challenge

FranMcP@aol.com wrote:

November 16, 1998
VICE PRESIDENT GORE ANNOUNCES NATIONAL RECYCLING CHALLENGE

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Vice President
___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release Contact:
Monday, November 16, 1998 (202) 456-7035

VICE PRESIDENT GORE ANNOUNCES NATIONAL RECYCLING CHALLENGE

Washington, DC -- Vice President Gore today announced a major
initiative to broaden the commitment to recycling in all sectors of the
economy.

"Americans across the country are increasingly concerned about the
impacts that more landfills and waste hauling will have on their
communities in the future," the Vice President said. "This means that
recycling is everybody's business."

"Working together, Americans have increased recycling by nearly 70
percent in six years," Vice President Gore said. "Today, there is even
more that we can do. I am challenging everyone in our communities and all
sectors of the economy to join with us in new partnerships to promote
recycling and to buy and use recycled products."

This initiative, the National Recycling Challenge, was announced as
part of America Recycles Day on November 15. Through this challenge, the
Clinton Administration will work with industry, businesses, universities,
and other institutions to strengthen their commitment to a national
recycling effort.

Vice President Gore was the Honorary Chair of this day's events, and
the new initiative furthers an executive order that President Clinton
issued this past September, directing Federal agencies to strengthen and
expand their recycling efforts.

Federal agencies will be among the first to meet the challenge with
new commitments to the purchase of recycled products. The Departments of
Interior and Justice, for example, announced today that their entire
vehicle fleets will now use only re-refined oil, reducing demands for oil
as well as greenhouse gas emissions generated in the refining process.

"I challenge every American to step forward and contribute to this
important national effort," Vice President Gore said. "By bringing new
partners to the recycling efforts of businesses and families across the
Nation, we will better protect our natural resources, improve our quality
of life, and strengthen our economy."

###

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:38:30 -0500
From: Blair Pollock <bpollock@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us>
Subject: not getting digest lately

I have not received the digest this month, is something happening? Please
advise.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:09:13 -0500
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: Self Adhesive postage stamps

At 06:41 PM 11/16/98 -0800, Frederick P. Bradford wrote:
>I like them. I use them. I'm sure that's not P.C.
>
>But as a stamp collector, I hate them because I can not "soak" them in
water to
>remove cancelled stamps from envelope.
>
>Anyone know how to remove the stamps without destroying them??
>
>-Fred Bradford
==========================
Here's a web reference which claims that self-adhesive stamps can be soaked
off:

http://www.richmond.edu/~educate/stohr/stamps/soaking.html

Roger M. Guttentag

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:09:13 -0500
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: Self Adhesive postage stamps

At 06:41 PM 11/16/98 -0800, Frederick P. Bradford wrote:
>I like them. I use them. I'm sure that's not P.C.
>
>But as a stamp collector, I hate them because I can not "soak" them in
water to
>remove cancelled stamps from envelope.
>
>Anyone know how to remove the stamps without destroying them??
>
>-Fred Bradford
==========================
Here's a web reference which claims that self-adhesive stamps can be soaked
off:

http://www.richmond.edu/~educate/stohr/stamps/soaking.html

Roger M. Guttentag

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:20:36 -0500
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: Self Adhesive postage stamps

At 06:19 PM 11/16/98 -0600, John Reindl wrote:
>Does anyone have any information on how many self-adhesive postage
>stamps are sold per year by the US Postal Service?

>John Reindl, Recycling Manager
>Dane County, WI
=============================================
John: One more follow-up to your question. A quick search yielded the
following 12/14/96 news article on the problems being caused for recyclers
by self-adhesive stamps:

http://lubbockonline.com/news/121496/postage.htm

This article reports that 60% of all printed stamps were self-adhesive. At
least this establishes a floor since I am certain this % has only gone up
not down since the end of 1996. I wouldn't be surprised if the figure is
now around 80% - 90% with water based glue stamps being primarily
commerative issues that are sold principally to the philatelic collecting
market.

Roger M. Guttentag

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:39:18 -0800
From: "Frederick P. Bradford" <avpower@hooked.net>
Subject: Self Adhesive postage stamps

"Roger M. Guttentag" wrote:
>

> Here's a web reference which claims that self-adhesive stamps can be soaked
> off:
>
> http://www.richmond.edu/~educate/stohr/stamps/soaking.html
>

Thanks Roger.

I assumed the self-adhesive stamps could not be soaked. For those interested,
the above site simply says that the new stamps take about 20 minutes rather than
about 5 to soak.

-Fred Bradford

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:39:18 -0800
From: "Frederick P. Bradford" <avpower@hooked.net>
Subject: Self Adhesive postage stamps

"Roger M. Guttentag" wrote:
>

> Here's a web reference which claims that self-adhesive stamps can be soaked
> off:
>
> http://www.richmond.edu/~educate/stohr/stamps/soaking.html
>

Thanks Roger.

I assumed the self-adhesive stamps could not be soaked. For those interested,
the above site simply says that the new stamps take about 20 minutes rather than
about 5 to soak.

-Fred Bradford

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:16:21 -0800
From: Myra Nissen <myracycl@inreach.com>
Subject: Self Adhesive postage stamps

I will test soak one and let you all know.

Myra

Frederick P. Bradford wrote:
>
> "Roger M. Guttentag" wrote:
> >
>
> > Here's a web reference which claims that self-adhesive stamps can be soaked
> > off:
> >
> > http://www.richmond.edu/~educate/stohr/stamps/soaking.html
> >
>
> Thanks Roger.
>
> I assumed the self-adhesive stamps could not be soaked. For those interested,
> the above site simply says that the new stamps take about 20 minutes
rather than
> about 5 to soak.
>
> -Fred Bradford

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 10:04:50 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
Subject: Store yanks direct-to-mouth PVC toy

Store yanks direct-to-mouth PVC toy

Toys 'R' Us, a worldwide seller of toys, said Friday it would have all
direct-to-mouth toys that contain phthalates removed from its store shelves by
Wednesday. The decision came just one day after the National Environmental
Trust, a nonprofit environmental organization, released test results showing
that 33 common soft plastic children's toys -- seven of which could be
purchased at Toys 'R' Us -- contained high levels of the chemical.

--------------------------------------------------

ENN NEWSWIRE
E-mail Edition for Monday, November 16, 1998
Produced by the Environmental News Network

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:51:48 -0800
From: Myra Nissen <myracycl@inreach.com>
Subject: Store yanks direct-to-mouth PVC toy

Does any one know if this polyvinyl toxic stuff extends to the polyvinyl
alcohol that is used in contraceptives?

Thank you.

Myra Nissen
The Sutta Co.
Oakland, CA
myracycl@inreach.com
510-873-8777
http://www.sutta.com

Bill Sheehan wrote:
>
> Store yanks direct-to-mouth PVC toy
>
> Toys 'R' Us, a worldwide seller of toys, said Friday it would have all
> direct-to-mouth toys that contain phthalates removed from its store shelves by
> Wednesday. The decision came just one day after the National Environmental
> Trust, a nonprofit environmental organization, released test results showing
> that 33 common soft plastic children's toys -- seven of which could be
> purchased at Toys 'R' Us -- contained high levels of the chemical.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> ENN NEWSWIRE
> E-mail Edition for Monday, November 16, 1998
> Produced by the Environmental News Network

------------------------------

End of GreenYes Digest V98 #243
******************************